Introduction
Related work
Methodology
Auto: researchers as participants
Participant ID | Gender | Experience | Specialization |
---|---|---|---|
F1 | F | Taught in S. Korea, the USA and Japan for 30 yrs. Extensive experience with various technologies and online teaching | Educational technology |
F2 | F | Taught in Japan for 12 yrs. Used basic functions of Moodle. No previous experience with online teaching | International political economy & public policy |
F3 | F | Taught in Japan for 14 years. Used basic functions of Moodle. No previous experience with online teaching | Sociology |
M1 | M | Taught in S. Korea, the USA and Japan for 21 years. Used Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai extensively. Some experience with online teaching | Linguistics |
M2 | M | Taught in the USA, S. Korea and Japan for 18 years. Used Blackboard, Google Suite, and Moodle extensively. No previous experience with online teaching | Asian Studies |
Ethno: research contexts
Course area (Level) | Instructor | Enrollment | Course structure and technology |
---|---|---|---|
Technology Application (Introductory) | F1 | 40 | Zoom and Moodle as main platforms. Kahoot, Google drive & Mentimeter as supportive tools. A combination of lectures, discussions and student presentations |
Research Method (Advanced) | F2 | 27 | Zoom and Moodle as main platforms. Workshops, discussions and student presentations with no lecture component |
Social Issues (Graduate seminar) | F3 | 5 | Zoom and Moodle as main platforms. A combination of lectures, discussions and student presentations |
Linguistics (Introductory) | M1 | 35 | Webex, Slack, and Moodle as main platforms. Mentimeter as supportive tool. A combination of lectures, and discussions |
Education (Intermediate) | M2 | 29 | Pre-recorded lectures uploaded as unlisted YouTube videos combined with weekly discussion on Zoom. All course materials managed on Moodle. Some experimentation with Mentimeter |
Graphy: journal writing and analysis
-
Overall experience: What were your main teaching behaviors or activities? What were you thinking and feeling while you were teaching?
-
Reflection: Did you face any expected and/or unexpected problems or issues? Did you address/solve some or all those issues? What did you think about those solutions? Were any knowledge/skills from your prior classroom teaching experience useful? Were there any other knowledge/resources that were helpful? Once the class was over, what did you think and feel about your class? Do you have any reflections or appraisals on the problems or issues solved and unsolved?
-
Deductive coding phase: Each of us carried out the analysis of our own journal data applying the four themes listed above and explored sub-themes for the next coding phase.
-
Inductive coding phase: We generated sub-coding schemes. The unit of analysis was a phrase with a single idea. After careful review of the coded data, we created tentative labels for data chunks, grouped them as sub-themes which were repeatedly modified as a group.
-
Final cross-checking phase: Individual coding was cross-examined by other members. Variations in our coding were discussed and resolved in a series of bi-weekly discussions of key themes and sub-themes for two months.
Findings
Faculty experience and reflection of emergency online teaching
Theme | Subtheme | Code frequency (%) |
---|---|---|
Problem | Student-related | 72 (25.4) |
Technology-related | 68 (23.9) | |
Content-related | 43 (15.1) | |
Time-related | 41 (14.4) | |
Adaptability | 28 (9.9) | |
Logistical | 12 (4.2) | |
Confidence | 11 (3.9) | |
Others | 9 (3.2) | |
Sub Total | 284 (100) | |
Reference | Classroom teaching | 60 (49.2) |
Students | 18 (14.8) | |
Previous experience with online teaching | 17 (13.9) | |
Peer | 11 (9.0) | |
Teaching assistant (TA) | 5 (4.1) | |
Training | 4 (3.3) | |
Research evidence | 4 (3.3) | |
Knowledge of technology | 3 (2.5) | |
Sub Total | 122 (100) | |
Action | Pedagogical solution | 78 (37.9) |
Technical solution | 48 (23.3) | |
Logistical solution | 44 (21.4) | |
Getting support | 18 (8.7) | |
No action | 13 (6.3) | |
Emotional adjustment | 5 (2.4) | |
Sub Total | 206 (100) | |
Self-appraisal | Feeling positive | 114 (37.6) |
Identifying prospects | 79 (26.1) | |
Feeling negative | 67 (22.1) | |
Regret | 22 (7.3) | |
Mixed feelings | 20 (6.6) | |
Seeking empathy | 1 (0.3) | |
Sub Total | 303 (100) |
-
Student-related problems (25.4%) included problems ranging from students showing lack of motivation to students having difficulties in adjusting to self-directed online learning. F1 stated, “One thing I noticed was that most students who appeared on the screen did not show any emotions on their face.” This could be lack of motivation or difficulties in adjusting on the part of students which is difficult to discern online. On the other hand, F3 noted positive changes in students’ response to online learning over time, which could be an indication that students are motivated. However, F3 observed that the “differences among students in terms of their motivation and ability have become clearer.”
-
Technology-related problems (23.9%) included difficulties faculty faced in using hardware or software for online teaching. Zoom-related problems using breakout rooms were most common for synchronous teaching.
-
Content-related problems (15.1%) included concerns over the level of difficulty of reading materials and the degree of students’ understanding in the classes. Students had difficulty finding academic papers online in Japanese and thus read more academic papers in English which F3 perceived to be a positive learning experience for them; nevertheless, she also expressed the feeling that, “I ought to provide support on this.”
-
Time-management problems (14.4%) included challenges such as time constraints after facing unexpected technical problems and management of time to allow for questions or discussion.
-
How we taught the same course in the classroom was the most prevalent reference among all other options (49.2%). For instance, compared with online teaching, M1 found that “explaining the examples in an in-class setting would have been easier because I would have seen the reaction by the students.” On a similar note, F3 anticipated challenges in teaching an action-oriented course online in a future term and stated, “I would very much like to hear experience of other people who have taught those types of classes.”
-
Students (14.8%) provided advice to their teacher when the teacher faced a problem. When F2 was not able to find the breakout function button with her guest status, a student explained how to solve that problem.
-
With respect to previous online teaching experiences, M2 recalled that “in the previous class we divided the students into their debate teams to practice using the manual assignment function of breakout rooms which worked OK.”
-
Pedagogical actions were extensively adopted to address a wide range of problems even for technological and logistical issues. M1 used online comment sheets “to grasp what students understood and what they have not yet clearly grasped” and F3 adjusted the contents of lectures “based on the predictions of what students would be able to understand and what would not” when they could not look at students’ reactions on the Zoom screen. When F2 observed that students were absent because of internet connectivity issues, F2 made sure that those students would not lag behind in learning by sending out announcements via Moodle.
-
Logistical actions addressed mainly logistical issues such as language of instruction and class preparation, and technical actions addressed problems mainly related to newly adopted technologies (e.g., Zoom and Kahoot).
Differences and similarities in faculty experience and changes over time
-
Those who implemented Zoom often faced technical issues in implementing small group discussions. F1 and M2 had a problem in assigning students into small groups manually using Zoom's breakout rooms function.
-
F3 who used YouTube video clips faced another issue. She could share a video but without sound.
-
M1 who introduced another interactive platform, mentimeter, during his Zoom sessions stated that its "anonymous comment sheets …prevented me from knowing whether the questions were coming from many students or whether only a handful of students were asking questions."
-
Those who introduced asynchronous sessions had different problems. M2 faced an issue in recording a lecture using Zoom: "Although I was clicking from slide to slide while delivering the lecture, in the Zoom video the PowerPoint stayed on the first title slide. So, in effect, I had just displayed the title slide for 55 min!"
-
Both groups, those who had more experience (F1 and M1) and those with less experience (F2, F3 and M2) with online teaching, used classroom teaching as their predominant reference point in the problem-solving process and listened to advice from students. M1 stated that “explaining the examples in an in-class setting would have been easier because I would have seen the reaction by the students.” F2 also claimed that in classroom teaching, "I could more easily oversee which group had difficulty and which group went well during discussion.”
-
Those with more online teaching experience tend to use references beyond classroom teaching. Research evidence, advice from their colleagues and teaching assistants, and previous experiences with online teaching were sought to understand the problems and explore possible solutions. F1 stated, "I looked for some papers and found a few useful references. Even though they did not have an exact answer for my specific question, one article was helpful." M1 and F1 also relied on TAs to monitor students' responses. On the other hand, those with less experience with online teaching used classroom teaching as their main reference when faced with various problems.
-
We all had to respond without much delay to the problems, especially technology-related ones, that suddenly disrupted the class. M2 was quick to respond to a situation when his camera was off by resolving the connectivity problem. F2 also responded to the students’ connectivity issue as soon as it happened by directing students “to turn off the PC and try to log out from the browser entirely and then sign in using the university account."
-
We all proactively took both pedagogical and technological actions to improve the quality of online teaching. M2 added a new interactive tool, mentimeter, during his Zoom session and stated that, "After the lecture I shared the students’ 9 questions which were uploaded to menti.com by sharing my screen. I felt like this was more questions than would have been asked in class…” F1 integrated Google functions during the Zoom meeting and posted detailed instructions and a link to the Google doc. She noted, “I did not have to visit each breakout room, which often disturbed the discussion. Instead, I read what each group was typing and left my comments in the Google doc.”
-
Around 28% of self-appraisal codes of those with less online teaching experience expressed negative feelings, while about 14% of the codes of those with more experience stated negative feelings. That is, M2, F2 and F3 who had less online teaching experience assessed online teaching more negatively compared with F1 and M1 who had more experience. M2 expressed his frustration and had to remind himself that, "I had become too trustworthy of the technology in thinking that it would work reliably each and every time." F2 also expressed frustration that, “the differences among students concerning their motivation and class engagement are visible from the beginning of the term …and such differences seem to persist than classroom teaching.”
-
Unlike M2 and F2, the negative feelings of F1 and M1 were less toward online teaching environments or technology functions, but more toward class content and lack of discussion.